The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Peter Beinart Has Gone Full Antisemite
In his recent book and an oped column, he channels Nazi and other antisemitic propaganda about the Purim Holiday
The basic story of the holiday of Purim, which starts Thursday night, is this. The King of the Persian empire takes a Jewish bride, Esther, who conceals her Jewish identity. Meanwhile, the king's evil vizier, Haman, plots a genocide of Jews throughout the empire, and wins the king's blessing to undertake the massacre on the 14th day of the month of Adar. Esther's uncle Mordechai gets wind of the plot, and beseeches Esther to intervene. Esther persuades the king to execute Haman, but the decree approving the massacre cannot be revoked. The king instead gives Jews throughout the empire the right to defend themselves, and the following transpires:
For the Jews that were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and slew three hundred men at Shushan; but on the prey they laid not their hand. But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand, but they laid not their hands on the prey on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of the same rested they, and made it a day of feasting and gladness
The text could not be clearer that the Jews rose in self-defense, and killed not random people, but the enemies who were preparing the genocide.
Nevertheless, for centuries antisemites have distorted the text to suggest that Jews were inherently bloodthirsty chauvinists who sought to massacre the people around them. The Nazis, for obvious reasons, particularly loved to rely on a story about Jews fighting back against genocidal enemies to libel Jews. The holiday loomed so large in Nazi consciousness that just before Hitler henchmen Julius Streicher was hanged, he shouted out, "Purimfest 1946!" But you don't have to take my word for it:
So what sort of vicious antisemite would spread similar libels about Purim in 2025? For one, New York Times writer Peter Beinart. Beinart has evolved over the years from "liberal Zionist" to "non-Zionist" to "anti-Zionist" to his later iteration, which is "deranged antisemitic anti-Zionist."
Here he is in a column in the Guardian, based on his recent book, explaining Purim in the same terms as the Nazis and other antisemites:
On the 13th day of the month of Adar, the Jews kill 75,000 people. They declare the 14th "a day of feasting and merrymaking". With the blood of their foes barely dry, the Jews feast and make merry. That's the origin of Purim.
Purim isn't only about the danger Gentiles pose to us. It's also about the danger we pose to them.
For most of our history, when Jews had little capacity to impose our will via the sword, the conclusion of the book of Esther was a harmless and even understandable fantasy. Who can blame a tormented people for dreaming of a world turned upside down? But the ending reads differently when a Jewish state wields life and death power over millions of Palestinians who lack even a passport. Today, these blood-soaked verses should unsettle us. When we recite them aloud in synagogue, we should employ the anguished, sorrowful tune in which we chant the book of Lamentations, which depicts the destruction of our ancient temples.
Instead, most of us ignore the violence that concludes the Esther scroll. Some contemporary Jews justify it as self-defense. On the far right, some revel in it. But they're the exception. More often, we look away. We focus on what they tried to do to us.
No, Peter, we don't look away. According to the story (which is, fwiw, historical fiction), armed mobs of 75,000 people came to murder the entire Jewish population of the Persian Empire, who were innocent of any wrongdoing. The Jews killed them before they could do it. Hooray! If only someone had done this to the Nazis in 1938, we could be celebrating Purim II, instead of mourning on Yom HaShoah.
If this doesn't cost Beinart his job on the New York Times op-ed page, it's a terrible sign of how antisemitism has been normalized in elite discourse.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"wins the king's blessing to undertake the massacre"
I don't remember that part. Cite?
Esther 3:8-15
https://forward.com/opinion/704209/purim-megillah-antisemitism-sexism/
What's missing here is why the Iranian King agreed to kill the Jews in the first place, and why he couldn't stop the massacre.
"If only someone had done this to the Nazis in 1938, we could be celebrating Purim II, instead of mourning on Yom HaShoah."
This is the problem I have with Jewish thought -- the "if only someone" [else] concept. There were what -- 17 Million Jews in Europe circa 1930? If only 10% of them had been armed -- armed with a 6-shot revolver or double barrel shotgun -- there wouldn't have been a Holocaust because of the 1.7 Million armed Jews.
I read Esther as a warning...
Persian, not Iranian. And the underlying reason was that Mordechai refused to bow down to Haman, and Haman got mad, which is no better reason than antisemites generally have. I'm sure there are midrashim that explicate Haman's motives in more detail.
Iran *IS* Persia. the Iranians *ARE* Persians, not Arabs, and speak Farsi, i.e. Persian.
QED.....
No, Iranians are (mostly) Persian, but ancient Persians were not Iranians.
Before Iran was called Persia it was called Iran (or “Ear-Ron” as Barry Hussein insisted on pronouncing it)
Isn't that like saying the Romans weren't Italians?
I know Esther predates Islam by at least a thousand years (I'm presuming Esther predates Jesus by at least 500), but as I understand it, it's been occupied by more or less the same people for the past 6000 years.
What am I missing here?
A bit like that, yes. Caesar was not an Italian ruler.
So Caesar was Japanese?
He was born in Rome.
Someone born in Rome today would be an Italian.
No, he was Roman. Please try to keep up.
And someone born in Jerusalem today would be an Israeli, but that doesn't mean that King Solomon would be correctly called Israeli.
Someone born in what is now Rio de Janeiro would be Brazilian. Someone who was born there 2000 years ago would not have been. Sometimes things change over time.
I hope you guys know that Ed is (a) a Bumble sockpuppet account that (b) exists only to say wrong or indefensible things to distract and annoy people. It's a very common troll technique, and sometimes he forgets to switch accounts when replying.
Bumble? Surely David Lloyd has better things to do with his time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lloyd_(cricketer)
I have many negative things to say about each of those two, but they are nothing alike and neither one is smart/creative enough to adopt an entirely new persona like that.
Could you point out the next time that happens? While Mr. Bumble and Dr. Ed do seem to be operating in a similar zone of resentful intellectual inferiority, they otherwise seem completely inapposite. Mr. Bumble just trots out the same line of uninteresting insults and is just barely above my mute threshold, while Dr. Ed is always so unrelentingly off the wall insane that I can’t look away. Certainly if someone is capable of inventing and maintaining the Dr. Ed persona with this level sustained consistency, I want to give them the credit they’ve earned.
Caesar would not have objected to someone's describing him as Italian.
Arma virumque cano Troiae qui primus ob oris
ITALIAM, fato profugus, Laviniaque venit
Litora.
And Aeneas was (mythicallly) the ancestor of the Romans and the Julian gens specifically through his son Iulus.
The Persians, along with many others, were the offspring of the Aryan race or tribe and called themselves and their land after that name.
Here's a decent overview including references to midrashim
https://www.thetorah.com/article/hamans-antisemitism-what-did-he-not-like-about-the-jews
Uh...what? Guess what they called Iran before 1935? It begins with "P" and ends with "ersia." My odjection to this post is lumping in all gentiles. The lesson to be drawn would seem to be the danger persians pose to jews. Which still exists today. Ask the Iranian supported animals in Syria and Gaza.
As usual Dr Ed lets us know there is no subject he won't pontificate ignorantly on. There was mass armed Jewish resistance to the Nazis. It was not able to achieve much, against an entire army and air force that was capable of defeating entire modern (in a contemporary sense) armed forces like those of France - particularly in the face of mass collaboration from many Christians in the invaded countries.
1: Other than the Warsaw Ghetto, name three.
2: Ever hear of a place called Vietnam?
3: The average Gestapo team, e.g. the one that captured Ann Frank, was two men and an officer. If her Uncle Otto had a 6-shooter and reasonable marksmanship, that'd be three dead Gestapo guys. It'd make it a LOT more difficult to round up the Jews.
1) https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-resistance
2) That's even more idiotic than your usual nonsense. The differences are numerous, not least that the US in Vietnam did not exact retribution against random civilians, and that the Vietnamese were not fighting the majority population of their country as well as the US.
3) When that was tried, the Nazis would round up a dozen, or a hundred, innocent civilians and shoot them. And yet, it was done repeatedly.
You really are an unbelievable cretin, even for one of the equine persuasion.
And if the hundred innocent civilians had also been armed???
You do remember the bit where the entire Dutch population was outnumbered by the Wehrmacht, right?
It's ironic that you're trying to make the case for everyone having guns, but are in fact making the case for gun control because everyone else can see that it isn't good to allow anyone as stupid as you to have access to guns.
Everyones a big talker until you’ve got a gun in your face
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a gun in my hand...
There is a subtext of criticism of the Persian King as being more interested in wine, women, vanity, flattery, and money than in the affairs of his kingdom. In this regard, Haman’s flattery and large sum of money probably paid a large part.
As an indication of this subtext, there is a passage where the king can’t sleep at night, and asks his courtiers to read him the chronicles of his deeds to help him fall asleep.
The reason the king couldn’t simply reverse the decree is that royal decrees can’t be reversed. And the reason is obvious. If one was, that might suggest the king thought he was wrong. And we can’t let anyone think the all-knowing, all wise, very stable genius king is wrong, can we?
Let’s just say some might see a certain resemblance between the biblical depiction of this king and certain modern leaders.
"Esther persuades the king to execute Haman, but the decree approving the massacre cannot be revoked. "
" armed mobs of 75,000 people came to murder the entire Jewish population"
The way you describe it, without additional context:
The king's vizier can order a massacre that the king can't revoke.
And his unrevokable order, apparently, was for random mobs to gather to attack innocent Jews.
This take is silly, maybe add more context.
Not sure what you think is missing. The royal decree was for the Jews to be massacred. Esther asked for it to be rescinded, the king said no, we can't rescind decrees. So the substituted decree was, the Jews were allowed to defend themselves. Esther 8:5-12.
See: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Esther-Chapter-3/
Apparently once it was published and distributed, it couldn't be unpublished. The king's ring (verse 10) was the king's seal (for sealing wax) and hence all the copies sent out were official.
in fairness, this is how the Berlin Wall came down --a bureaucrat misspoke on TV.
Or maybe he was an arrogant man who didn't want to be seen as changing his mind.
See quadrennial questions to incumbant presidents to list one mistake they made, and they either say "nothing" or some stupid little thing.
Is that the conventional interpretation? To me, the “cannot be revoked” in Esther 8:8 seems like a clear reference to the new decree that Mordechai is supposed to write (i.e. the one authorizing the Jews to defend themselves), not the original one Haman sent out. I don’t read Hebrew, but the Vulgate has “nemo auderet contradicere.” That reads to me like the King reassuring Mordechai and Esther that whatever they write will be obeyed, not an excuse for why he can’t rescind Haman’s decree directly—a request that, as far as I can tell, is never discussed or even contemplated, and a restriction that indeed would be odd for a Persian King to feel bound by (or a classical Jewish author to think his audience would find plausible).
But the rule that a decree cannot be revoked applies to all decrees, and hence to the earlier one.
I don’t think it’s presented as a rule thought: in the Vulgate it’s definitely not, in the Septuagint and English versions I can find it’s at best ambiguous. And given how strange it would be for a Persian king to feel bound by such a rule, I’m not sure why it makes sense to read it that way. (If the Hebrew suggests otherwise, definitely let me know!)
Whether it makes historical sense or not, it's a key part of the story of Esther: there was at least one kind of decree the king could make which was absolute and irrevocable. (As far as I remember, he could also make revocable laws, but some were absolutely binding, even on a king.)
Esther 8:3-8.
Esther asked for the decree to be rescinded. That could not happen because of the no-rescinding rule. So he told them to write a new decree as they saw fit.
Again, please let me know if the Hebrew suggests otherwise, but that’s not what it seems to say. It says Esther asked the King to eliminate (Gr: ἀφελεῖν, Lat: irritas fiery) Haman’s. She asks him to undo (Gr: ἀποστραφῆναι, Lat: corrigantur) Haman’s order. He doesn’t say that he can’t do it: on the contrary, he tells Esther and Mordechai to issue whatever order they want (Gr: ὡς δοκεῖ ὑμῖν, Lat: sicut vobis placet). The next clause seems to me yo be reassurance that their order will be obeyed. I don’t see anything suggesting they even contemplated simply trying to revoke Haman’s directive.
The Hebrew word is לְהָשִׁ֣יב. Which means to return or call back.
Her first request is:
יִכָּתֵ֞ב לְהָשִׁ֣יב אֶת־הַסְּפָרִ֗ים מַֽחֲשֶׁ֜בֶת הָמָ֤ן
Let it be written to return the writs of the plan of Haman.
She wanted the original decree recalled. That's plain in the text.
BTW, this aspect of Persian law is also mentioned in Daniel, where King Darius' advisors tell him that he should decree a law that cannot be repealed:
Now, O king, you shall issue a decree and inscribe a writ that will not be amended, like the law of Media and Persia, which will not be repealed.
Daniel 6:9.
I believe it’s actually 6:8. But at any rate, I’m not sure that says that the King can’t change his own laws—rather, it seems like the concern would be to ensure that Daniel, the second most powerful person in the kingdom, couldn’t change it.
They didn't have telephones or radios or TV back then.
HOW could he promulgate the message that the other degree should be ignored?
What a silly response (and not even to one of the many right comments).
Under no interpretation of the story was that objection raised. And, of course, it would apply equally to the message that they did send. Also note that one of the things the Persian Empire was most famous for was the efficiency of its eternal methods of communication—you may recall a turn of phrase about snow, rain, heat, and gloom of night on this point.
I think you can infer that Esther and Mordechai might have realized that they didn’t know exactly who had received Haman’s letters so that they couldn’t be sure simply cancelling it would be enough, and that in turn would be a reason why authorizing the Jews to defend themselves could have been their first response. But I don’t see anything that would suggest communications delays favored into anything.
The text in Hebrew refers generically to decrees, not to any specific one. It's not entirely clear from the text, which often uses poetic devices, whether the issue is that a decree from the king *cannot* be revoked or whether it's something that is just not done.
Is it possible that the rule was intended to avoid confusion. Some likely would not be aware of the revocation, and act on the original decree.
Then what?
The book of Esther is pretty short and easily available online. Read it, and then let me know what you think I've missed.
I think you missed the part where this is all make believe. You are literally having a hissy fit over the NYT critiquing a fairytale. Aren’t you a little old for fairytales?
Reading is not your forte, is it? DB did not miss this, he wrote "(which is, fwiw, historical fiction)"
Nor is reading comprehension, as the point of ths post is not a critique of the story of Purim, but a critique of the antisemitic take on this story, by a current OpEd writer
There is no such thing as an anti-Semitic take on a fictional story. It’s just a stupid fairytale and nothing more. It makes no difference if the Jews were defending themselves or committing genocide against gentiles. Neither story is anti-Semitic. They’re just different versions of the same made up fable from thousands of years ago. Next DB is going to claim Harry Potter is anti-Semitic.
"There is no such thing as an anti-Semitic take on a fictional story"
What a stupid thing to say. Why on earth shouldn't there be? There have been many such idiocies uttered over the years.
No one cares about the Jewish extended cinematic universe. You guys are worse than Marvel fans.
Interesting quote. Where is it from, please?
You know, if you want more context, the full story is available in multiple translations in every library and practically in every household in America. Likely including your own.
I bet the Book of Ester is as common as the Bible.
Silly me -- I thought it was IN the Bible.
*whoosh*
See my comment above. If a royal decrees were revoked, that might give some the impression the king thought he was wrong. And surely such a great, mighty, all-wise, all-powerful, all-knowing, very stable genius king can never be wrong, can he? The very thought might lower his self-esteem. Much better that 75,000 people die than allow that to happen.
Some contemporary Jews justify it as self-defense.
The writer of the Book of Esther did so.
Poor Peter Beinart. Like much of the world, he loves Jews as victims. He hates the notion that Jews might defend themselves and take destruction to their sworn enemies.
Exodus 22.2 is more direct.
Peter Beinart has no such belief. He is a paid stooge for antisemites, not a useful idiot. The useful idiots are bad enough, the craven, historically ignorant fools who mistakenly believe helping their enemies will keep them out of the gas chambers are worse, and the very worst of all are the grifters like Beinart who are happy to take antisemites' money to betray their own people (and provide some of the vanishingly rare examples of Jewish people actually matching antisemitic stereotypes, into the bargain).
If this doesn't cost Beinart his job on the New York Times op-ed page, it's a terrible sign of how antisemitism has been normalized in elite discourse.
Professor Bernstein, I don't think The Old Grey Hag will part ways with Peter Beinart.
This seems an inter-Judiaism conflict. Beinart is spicier with the language, but I get the sense that his view is not uncommon among reform Jews.
I don't know how I feel about entireties to third parties to sanction Jews that Bernstein thinks have gone beyond the pale.
This would be an intra-communal conflict if he was a rabbi who gave a sermon about how he finds it disturbing how Jews celebrate the death of 75K people, even if they were genocidal enemies. It's a public controversy because he wrote a column for The Guardian with a 99% non-Jewish audience claiming that Purim shows that Jewish culture is dangerous to non-Jews.
Well put; that is a fair point.
In other words, a shanda fur die goyim?
"inter-Judiaism "
Intra
But he's not writing for a Jewish publication but a big left wing newspaper.
Pseudo-left-wing, pseudo-newspaper, at this point. The Guardian sold out years ago, just like all the other major broadsheets.
What, pray tell, do you see as "(p)seudo-left-wing, pseudo-newspaper" WRT The Guardian? You think it in truth is "conservative," "middle-of-the-road," or something other than "left-wing"? If so, what, and what competing publications are more deserving of the epithet than The Guardian? And if a "pseudo-newspaper," then what other publications would you so identify and which do you count as "real" newspapers? (I trust you are not talking about whether there are print editions or not.)
And what do you mean when you say that The Guardian "sold out years ago"? Do you mean that at a former time they were more reliable, more objective, less hostile to Israel, or what?
Whut?
Their pretensions to being left wing are nonsense. They frequently fall for fash propaganda, Iranian propaganda, Russian propaganda, and so-on. That's because, not being a real paper anymore, they have no-one working for them with more than the bare minimum of brains.
And their pretension to still be a real newspaper is obvious nonsense, as it is for basically every other newspaper in the world. The majority of their readers are online. They exist to gain clicks and sell ads.
I really don't know what political/partisan point you imagined I was making, but my comment was not that.
Were you trying to suggest that they must be left wing, because they're wildly antisemitic? I assure you, that is very much not the sole preserve of the left.
"Their pretensions to being left wing are nonsense. They frequently fall for fash propaganda, Iranian propaganda, Russian propaganda, and so-on. That's because, not being a real paper anymore, they have no-one working for them with more than the bare minimum of brains." Going with Iranian or Russian propaganda is incompatible with "left-wing"? I don't think so and would ask you to tell us which left-wing publications wouldn't be caught doing so.
"And their pretension to still be a real newspaper is obvious nonsense, as it is for basically every other newspaper in the world."
If you believe that to be true of "basically every other newspaper in the world," then what is your point, there being no true nexspaper still extent in the world? (Not even Murdoch's NY Post and other exemplary purveyors of whatever?)
"I really don't know what political/partisan point you imagined I was making, but my comment was not that." I understood you to be dissing The Guardian, which I am happy to do too, but I don't think it can be as easily dismissed as you do, since there are some consequential pieces that run there.
"Were you trying to suggest that they must be left wing, because they're wildly antisemitic? I assure you, that is very much not the sole preserve of the left." It may not be the sole preserve of the left, put how many not left wing outlets are competitive when it comes to antisemitism, especially the anti-Zionist form (i.e., passable by JDA standards, but not by IHRA ones)? Which right-wing ones do you think should be called out?
FYI, here is a page of an antique megillat Esther I inherited from my grandfather:.
How old is it? It is beautiful.
I don't know - I'd need to take it to an expert. The ornate tagin are splendid, no?
It is very special, SRG2.
As the old French ditty has it:
Cet animal est très méchant,
Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
Beinart is "a schande far di goyim" (אַ שאַנדע פֿאַר די גויים)
Yes indeed
and a Schmuck
It could be worse; he could be Max Blumenthal. Or Aaron Maté.
Max Blumenthal is too far down and crowded out by other Jewish antisemites to bother noting. (Where does one go to read him, if one had the stomach for his crap. If Max, who corners his targets in men's bathrooms, wasn't so inconsequential, he might be a candidate for the Otto Weininger loathsome antisemite prize. Aaron Mate I don't have the displeasure of knowing.)
Are you still under the delusion that there is anyone on the left that isn't like this?
What’s his take on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Genocidal Jews massacre poor, innocent Germans?
The Purim shpiel writes itself.
It’s been a while since I read Esther but a quick skim reads to me like a preemptive attack.
Obviously it’s impossible to know at this time if it was warranted.
I hate Anti-Semite Semites!
Having now done a closer reading of Esther than I probably have ever done before, one thing struck me as notable.
Esther and Mordechai’s order says that the Jews, in arming and defending themselves, could kill women and children and “take the spoil of them for a prey” (KJV). Despite the rather impressive casualty figures, the text is explicit that Jews don’t do this, instead limiting their actions to what is necessary to prevent their extermination.
So to the extent we’re looking to draw a lesson relevant to modern Israel, I think it’s rather the opposite of what Beinart suggests.
The rabbis noted this fact. Recall that Haman is noted to be an "Agagite." This is a reference to Agag king of Amalek, who is mentioned in 1 Samuel 15. King Saul had been commanded to utterly destroy the Amalekites, including their property, but he spared Agag the king, and also the Amalekite sheep and cattle. For which he lost the kingdom.
The actions of Mordechai and Esther were a kind of makeup for that breach.
Oh my god! Who cares! Esther is a fictional story from the old testament. How could it possibly be anti-semitic to have a different version or interpretation of a fairytale. None of this actually happened anyway. David Bernstein is a nut who now just claims everything is anti-semitic. What next? Is he going to find anti-semitism in the story of Adam and Eve?
Or, "it's not happening, stop exaggerating!" stage 3.
I see reading is not your strong suit.
It matters to the fundamentalists among us who take the Bible literally. Actually, once you stop taking it as literal history it does have some pretty good stuff. And some pretty bad stuff. As with most other things, learning which is which is the trick.
However, that does pose another, more immediate issue. Jewish claims to the land are based on the Bible. if the whole thing is a fairy tale, then those claims evaporate.
I would argue that the entire Middle East is an example of how religion poisons things. You've got Muslims and Jews each claiming that their god gave it to them. Take religion out of it and reasonable people might just be able to work out a solution that, if not 100% satisfactory to everyone, would at least allow the issues to be discussed in a more rational way. There's probably plenty of land for both of them.
They are, in fact, not.
OK, so on what then are they based?
You don’t have to believe in the literal truth of any given text to interpret it in an antisemitic way—which is exactly what Beinart has done.
It is a fictional story. No version of the fairytale is true. No interpretation of a fictional story can be anti-Semitic. This is so dumb.
"No interpretation of a fictional story can be anti-Semitic. This is so dumb."
You're right, because your grammar is very poor. What you said is dumb.
It's such an obviously false thing to say that I can't imagine you have any brain left at all; clearly it all melted and dribbled out through your ears long ago.
If someone were to say, for example, that the portrayal of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice is entirely true to life and exactly like all Jews alive today, that would be an obviously antisemitic 'interpretation', despite the Merchant of Venice being a work of fiction, no?
I don't think you know what the word "grammar" means.
"I don't think"
This time you could only manage to be correct for part of a sentence, but keep trying.
What actually happened 2500 years ago is beyond irrelevant. What we choose to celebrate today, and how, matters. No Purim celebration I've been too has celebrated the killing of Haman's supporters. Everyone understands that mores were different 2500 years ago. Just because people celebrate some part of the Bible does not mean they endorse all of it. The Bible treats slavery as normal -- does that mean every Bible-based holiday celebrates slavery?
You should publish a commentary to that in a major newspaper!
I can't say that I've ever celebrated the killing in self-defense of Haman's minions who were preparing to annihilate the Jews. But I wouldn't see anything wrong with it, either. Killing evil people about to murder innocent others is a good thing, albeit keeping in mind that everyone is created in the image of God.
"Killing evil people about to murder innocent others is a good thing . . . "
Stay away from abortion clinics in Great Britain!
Why is David Bernstein such a nut? The book of Esther is made up nonsense. The Old Testament is fiction. Why the hell is he debating what happened in the fictional multiverse of Jewish mythology? Zionists obviously suffer from mentally illness, but pretending anything from the Old Testament actually happened is severe schizophrenia.
The point he is making has absolutely nothing to do with "what actually happened." If I write that "Little Red Riding Hood" means that white girls should avoid black men, does that make me a racist. I would say it does. What does the fact that the story is a fairly tale have to do with it?
I do not see the libel here. Jews do indeed celebrate stories of persecution and survival and/or revenge. Beinart says: There’s a joke that every Jewish holiday has the same plot: “They tried to kill us, we survived, let’s eat.”
These stories do indeed inform us that Israel was sure to retaliate for the Oct. 7 attacks. Did anyone have any doubt? Hamas had to know that this would be the end of Gaza as we knew it.
Beinart ends up saying both Israel and Hamas are evil. He probably thinks that both sides of every war are evil. It is just an opinion.
"These stories do indeed inform us that Israel was sure to retaliate for the Oct. 7 attacks. Did anyone have any doubt? Hamas had to know that this would be the end of Gaza as we knew it."
White supremacists have "accelerationist" fantasies that they will set off race wars and eliminate their inferiors. To date they haven't come close to succeeding, unless you think the Nazis came horribly close to success. In any event, Hamas's 10/7/23 attack was meant to spark a regional war in which they would be joined by other Islamist terrorists, that is Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, AND Iran. Well, they got some buy-in by those other evil-doer "resistance" Islamists, but their spark wasn't such as to ignite the greater anti-Israel conflagration Yahya Sinwar dreamed of.
Sinwar is unavailable for comment at this time (should we praise Allah for calling back his faithful follower, albeit far too late), but the Israelis recovered considerable documentary evidence of Hamas' intentions, which were to go well outside the bounds of what might be viewed as ordinary warfare, with the rapes, beheadings, murder of children in front of their parents, and other unspeakable barbarities. I think this an extraordinary aspect of an extraordinary conflict. Hamas was going all in and deserved EVERY bit of the response it elicited.
You may be correct about all of that, but Bernstein's post is about whether Breinart should be fired for how he relates the Gaza War to ancient Jewish stories.
According to Beinart, "It's they tried to kill, we murdered their children, let's eat." Therein lies the issue.
It indeed an opinion—an ignorant and antisemitic one.
I don't have much to contribute on the substance of this post, but I want to recognize Prof Bernstein for his continued willingness to engage with the readers in the comments section. Other VC contributors would be well served by following his example.
"Other VC contributors would be well served by following his example."
Do you think it might have a salutary effect on the derogated quality of these comment threads that IMO have declined in various ways over the course of recent years? I do. (Maybe like the difference when the teacher is in the room.)
I think that the best ideas are a product of healthy debate, so it could only serve to improve comment quality. But there's only one way to find out for sure!
Would they, though? That's the only way I can imagine Blackman's posts being even more of a shitshow than they are now. And Somin's participation would just invite even more abuse from xenophobic MAGA.
I don't blame Ilya for shit-posting and running. His ideas are indefensible.
At the risk of regretting posting on this subject, I'd suggest that the journalist, while perhaps inartful, may have been trying to make a point that is hardly new. More directly on point, however, might be discussion of the question of the Amalek.
A scholarly work (referencing ancient scholarly work) on the subject is: "Remember Amalek!: Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus" by Louis H. Feldman
From a review posted on the website of the Hebrew Union College Press:
******
The divine command to exterminate Amalek—men, women, children, and even animals who have no free will—is what in contemporary terms has been called genocide. Louis Feldman explores how the earliest systematic commentators on the Bible—the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo in his many essays on biblical themes; the mysterious, still unclassified Pseudo-Philo in his Biblical Antiquities; the premier Jewish historian and polymath Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities; and the Rabbis in the Mishnah, Talmud, and other literature—wrestled with the issues involved in this divine command, especially its provision that an entire people must be eternally punished for the misdeeds of their ancestors.
****
What relevance could this ancient biblical story (and the dispute over its historicity and meaning) have today? Well, to quote Wikipedia as a handy source:
***
In the Israel–Palestine conflict, some Israeli politicians and extremists have compared Palestinians to Amalek, stated that the Palestinians are the Amalekites[102][103] or accused Arabs of exhibiting "behavior" that is "typical" of Amalekites.[104] Yasser Arafat was called "the Amalek and Hitler of our generation" by 200 rabbis.[104] Many in the Gush Emunim movement see Arabs as the "Amalek of today".[105] One reason includes the belief that Amalek is any nation that prevents Jews from settling in the Land of Israel, which includes the Palestinians.[106] During the 2014 Gaza war, a leading yeshiva identified Palestinians as the descendants of the ancient Amalekites and Philistines.[106] Genealogically, Arabs are not related to Amalekites and prior to the Arab–Israeli conflict, some Jews associated Amalek with the Roman Empire and medieval Christians.[104]
***
The more things change, the more they stay the same. An ancient text is used by some to justify otherwise immoral acts today (Torah, Bible, Koran, etc.) and there is deep division even amongst the "believers" about what the ancient text "means." Because some see justification for current acts in the ancient texts, others see a need to caution against reading the texts literally. And the arguments go on...
Wikipedia has been the subject of an organized campaign by Israel-haters and antisemites, and you can't trust a word it says about anything Israel-related, including this. "Amalek" in Jewish culture in 2025 means "reminiscent of our genocidal enemies throughout history" and is not a call to "exterminate" anyone.
Presuming and hoping the nation of Israel remains powerful and in control of it's own destiny, it has the following options:
1. Countenance the creation of an independent Palestinian nation on the West Bank and Gaza, or perhaps two separate nations.
2. Create a unified single state in all of historic Palestine that grants full citizenship rights to all residents with that state.
3. Create a unified single state in all of historic Palestine that grants no citizenship rights to the Palestinians trapped within that state.
4. Create a unified single state in all of historic Palestine that removes Palestinians from that state.
There are numerous sub-questions and variations of these four alternatives (e.g: What about current Christian and Muslim citizens of Israel? Should Palestinians be paid to leave by Israel and other nations be paid to take Palestinian migrants? Could Jewish settlers on the West Bank be allowed to continue to live in a Palestinian state and on what terms?). But these are the four basic alternatives
I don't doubt the examples given by Wikipedia, there are many more. I don't claim that YOU talk about extermination, but I don't doubt that there are those (too many, IMHO) who do. As an example, take an over 20 year old book that talked about the rise of right wing "religious Zionism" (as opposed to the traditional 'social' kind) : "Brother Against Brother: Violence and Extremism in Israeli Politics from Altalena to the Rabin Assassination" by Ehud Sprinzak.
And, if you don't like Wikipedia, perhaps the Jerusalem Post would be more preferable. Here is a quote from Shamir Sheves, former director general for (former) prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, made in 2023 response to a call for the release of Yigal Amir (Rabin's assassin):
***
"There were tens of thousands [of people] who encouraged the murder," Sheves continued, explaining why he thought that Amir would eventually be released. "[Amir's] was just the gun that fired. Behind him were many people, politicians, clergymen."
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-753243
***
It is never nice to contemplate the violent who may at least ostensibly share your goals, but ignore them at your peril.
NM-Steve, Thank you for your contributions above. Sometimes I think I have wasted my time on these threads. What you have contributed is definitely worthwhile.
what do these examples and quotes have to do with the question of Amalek?
There are extremist who espouse violence everywhere, but what would you think of a journalist who tried to take the case of Anders Behring Breivik and make it into an essay about the danger posed by Norwegians, or Scandinavian people in general, to the non-Nordic people of the world? Just "inartful"?
If this doesn't cost Beinart his job on the New York Times op-ed page, it's a terrible sign of how antisemitism has been normalized in elite discourse.
IIRC Bari Weiss argued in a letter of resignation to NYT Publisher AG Sulzberger that the NYT had normalized antisemitism. Her letter was off the charts elite writing. She should have been awarded a Pulitzer for it
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
I assume you are being sarcastic. It is a terrible letter. I wonder how she ever got to be a columnist.
Roger's like, "You got me excited to hear about antisemitism. But that's not nearly antisemitic enough for my tastes."
No, I don't really agree with the sort of antisemitism that appears in the NY Times. The paper is run by Jews for a largely Jewish audience, and it ought to be more pro-Israel.
Your tastes run more to the Daily Sturmer variety?
I would suggest that arguing about the finer points of Jewish mythology is fine as an excercise for theologians, but it seems ill-conceived (to put it mildly) as a way of making a point about the present.
David Bernstein always seems to get things right. A pleasure to read his essays and thoughts on legal as well as bibilical issues.
“Purim isn't only about the danger Gentiles pose to us. It's also about the danger we pose to them.”
Purim is a threat to us Gentiles? Who knew?
In my reading of Esther, Purim celebrates the rescue of Jewish people from a murderous plot by a low down dirty deceiver (Haman). Because of Haman's "cleverness" the only way to stop the plot is for the King of Persia to authorize the targeted Jews to defend themselves from those who authorized to kill them. Purim does not celebrate the destruction of the enemies of Jews (that destruction is the result of Haman's deceit). It celebrates the salvation of people targeted for genocide.
That's not just a misreading of the Book of Esther, that's an F in a course. He lies about Deir Yassin (see "The Massacre That Never Was" by Eliezer Tauber which is heavily sourced with archived eyewitness testimony from Bir Zeit University in Ramallah). Additionally he distorts the migration whose cause was the lie spread about Deir Yassin by Husayn al-Khalidi, secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, who thought that the rape narrative would galvanize the Arabs to fight against the Jews, but which had the opposite affect of people fleeing to protect their women. Once more see the above book. And anyone sourcing Walid Khalidi w/o critical review has a political bias that is as clear as the mid-day sun.
Why does this man still have a job?
Thought David and others ought to read this:
https://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/en_esther.html
The Book of Esther is true!